Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

No Dangerous Rise in Temperatures.

Those who have
knowledge, don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge” – Lao Tzu, 6th
Century BC Chinese Poet

Why No Dangerous Rise in Temperatures Threatens

Address to University of Third Age, Orrong Rd, 28 March
2011 by Des Moore

I start with a confession that
I have no belief in the thesis promulgated by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) that unless early government action is taken to reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases there will be a continuing increase in temperatures that
will reach dangerous levels for humans. This is not to deny that temperatures
have increased and may increase further: the key questions to examine are the
cause and the possible human contribution, and whether any further likely increases
are capable of being handled safely, as they have to date.I propose to examine the main arguments
adduced to support the dangerous warming thesis and to show that there is no
substantive basis to them. I say this despite the acceptance of the thesis by
just about all major political parties in the Western world and despite
persistent claims that there is a scientific consensus on the issue.

When I first began to present
my views on global warming in public three or four years ago I was widely
regarded as being extreme and ignorant about what some regard as the greatest
threat faced by mankind. Those terms have re-emerged strongly in recent days in
Canberra and elsewhere. I present myself here as someone who is attempting to
present the facts and who knows many with like minds.

It is important to recognise
that supposedly irrefutable arguments by experts have been discarded or
substantially altered many times in the past. Back in 1972 when I attended the
Royal College of Defence Studies in London many respected scientists (and
others) were then promulgating the view that unless governments acted to stop
or radically slow the growth of population the world would soon run out of
resources to feed and care for the needs of the higher populations. The thesis
I wrote as part of my attendance at the College in London argued that the
scientists concerned had not only failed to understand the way economic systems
function to overcome actual or potential shortages but had overlooked the
almost certain development of scientific innovations that would ensure growing
living standards.. This 1972 Malthusian thesis is still hovering around but has
faded somewhat as living standards have increased even as populations have
grown and as the identified supply of resources has also continued to grow.

Today, the global warming
scare is starting to fade too, although less in Australia than some other
countries. A large survey (7000) in March in the US by the popular science
journal, Scientific American, showed that 78% believe climate change is a
natural process and 26% believe it comes from greenhouse gases. A PEW survey
last October showed 34% believed warming came from human activity, which is
about the same as the proportion who believe houses are haunted! In
Australia, a Gallup poll last August showed 44% believe warming is due to human
activity, down from 52% in 2006, although 69% believe it is a serious or very
serious problem, only slightly down from the previous poll of 75%. A US
Gallup Poll in 2009 showed that out of eight environmental problems global
warming ranked last

My argument that theglobal
warming scare is fading is not simply based on such polling. It partly reflects
the fiasco in Copenhagen last year. That showed that, when political leaders
have to make decisions that would hurt their taxpayers’ pockets, they are much
less likely to agree than when they are asked to answer questions requiring no
action. Just as important as the Copenhagen and Cancun flops has been the
exposure of exchanges of emails between scientists that revealed the experts
who are part of the supposed scientific consensus are in reality themselves uncertain
about the science. This exposure, popularly described as ClimateGate, also
revealed that even scientists are not above manipulating data and using dodgy
analyses to produce results that fit the theory. One outcome is that there is
now doubt even about the accuracy of actual surface temperature measurements
and the extent of increases.

Other influences over the last 2-3 years have been the increasing
analyses by scientists questioning claims by the IPCC. These have revealed
important errors in the IPCC 2007 report including the claim that Himalayan
glaciers are in danger of melting by 2035, which if correct would have serious
adverse implications for water supplies in major countries. It turns out that,
contrary to IPCC claims that everything has been peer-reviewed, this one was
not. The Indian head of IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, who initially said the denial
of melting was voodoo science, eventually had to admit an error. But this was
not the only case where IPCC alarmism or failure to peer review had been used
to scare people into believing the thesis. Others include incorrect claims that
40% of the Amazon rain forest is at risk of destruction; that African
agricultural production is likely to be cut in half; that coral reef
degradation will be extensive; that glacier melt will occur in the Andes and
Alps; that extreme weather related events are causing rising costs; and that
the Netherlands is 55% below sea levels when in fact it is only 26% and has
shown itself well able to handle relevant problems.

These errors and the exposures of uncertainty led to the
announcement of “independent reviews” into the IPCC, a section of the US
university attended by prominent believer Michael Mann and the Climate Research
Unit at East Anglia University. That CRU unit has been the major supplier of
data and analyses to the IPCC, which itself undertakes no scientific research. The
head of the CRU, Phillip Jones, let the cat out of the bag in an interview last
year with the BBC environment reporter when he admitted that surface
temperature data probably cannot be verified or replicated, that the medieval
warming period may have been as warm as today; that no statistically measured
global warming has occurred for the last 15 years; and that the science is not
settled.

Despite such revelations and the
Copenhagen fiasco, the four reviews held into ClimateGate did not produce any
sackings or formal retractions. Independent analyses of these reviews have concluded
that they were heavily influenced by those appointed to undertake them, most of
whom were believers in the dangerous warming thesis. The unfortunate reality is
that so many scientists (and others) have locked themselves into the
supposed scientific consensus that it is likely to take some considerable time
before government policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are
either abandoned or allowed to wither on the vine.

More generally however, although the believers in the
dangerous warming thesis have not reversed their view that the basic science is right, there has been
increasing acknowledgement that there are uncertainties. This should not be
surprising given that in the 987 page report of Working Group 1 of the IPCC’s
2007 report the words “uncertain” or
“uncertainty” appear more than 1,300 times and includes no less than 54 “key
uncertainties” that acknowledge limits to capacity to predict climate change. However
the uncertainties referred to in this key Working Group document attract very
little public or political attention. The focus is on the much shorter “Summary
for Policy Makers” also published by the IPCC and designed to “sell” the
dangerous warming thesis to governments and the public. It claims the thesis
has 90% certainty.

Perhaps the most important public recognition by mainstream scientists
of the uncertainties has been last September’s report by the Royal Society,
which is a widely regarded as an authority on climate science. This report was
produced in response to concerns by some members that it was wrong for the Society’s
public statements to claim there is a consensus. While the report itself had a
bit both ways, it did acknowledge that climate change “continues to be the
subject of intensive research and public debate”, that “some uncertainties are
unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”, and that” it is not possible to
determine how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change
in the future”. A not dissimilar development occurred in the American Physical
Society (the top body of US physicists), where a large dissenting group
circulated a letter last year saying ClimateGate had revealed “an international
fraud, the worst any of us have seen”. More recently, when 18 scientist
believers sent a letter to Congress in February asking that its attention be concentrated
on the view that human activity is changing the climate, 36 scientists
responded with a letter referring to 678 peer-reviewed scientific studies that
“offer a point-by-point rebuttal of all the claims” by the 18. Also in the US over
30,000 scientists, including 9,000 Phds, have signed a petition specifically
rejecting the dangerous warming thesis. In Australia a written document
was sent last year to the government by four respected sceptical scientists and
this led to a hearing in Canberra before the then Climate Minister Wong - but
rejection of the proposal for an independent inquiry into the science.

These and other reactions by mainstream scientists confirm
that those rejecting the dangerous warming thesis are far from being ignorant extremists.

Outside the scientific world
many books and articles have been written either rejecting or questioning the
thesis and pointing out the many analytical mistakes made in the past by
scientists. I mention here only the book Scared to Death by Christopher Booker
which gives numerous worrying examples of the disastrous consequence associated
such mistakes.

Published analysis by
Australia’s professionally respected Productivity Commission is also important.
It has noted that “uncertainty continues to pervade the science and geopolitics
and, notwithstanding the Stern Report, the economics” (that 2006 report by
economist Nicholas Stern argued that the benefits of strong, early action on
climate change considerably outweigh the costs because it will be difficult or
impossible to reverse the changes in temperatures from doing nothing and,
hence, tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term).
The Productivity Commission has also pointed out that “independent action by
Australia to substantially reduce GHG emissions, in itself, would deliver
barely discernible climate benefits, but could be nationally very costly”. And
it described the Stern report “as much an exercise in advocacy as it is an
economic analysis of climate”. The Commission is now examining where Australia currently
lines up internationally on the net effect of various policies designed to
reduce emissions and PC chief Banks has already pointed out publicly that the
cost of achieving a similar level of reductions to others will be greater for
Australia because we are a bigger user of fossil fuels.

Notwithstanding this, and the
publicly available acknowledgements of uncertainties and possible flaws in the
science, the Gillard Government aims to start in 2012 a policy of reducing
emissions by 5% by 2020 (compared with 2000) through, initially, a tax and then
through the establishment of a system that would impose limits on carbon
emissions by 2000 leading businesses and provide opportunities to trade in
available carbon. It proposes to proceed regardless of what other countries do.
The Opposition also supports the need to reduce emissions although by direct
action such as planting of trees and carbon sequestration. Last March the
CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology produced a joint State of Climate report that accepted the dangerous warming thesis.
This report, which claims to be “sourced from peer-reviewed data”, says that
Australia will be hotter and drier in coming decades. It also claims that it is
“very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming since
1950”. The Fairfax press remains firmly locked in to this view and even The
Australian, which publishes sceptical views, has stuck to an editorial position
that there is a warming problem. The Australian has, however, opposed the
adoption by Australia of an emissions reduction policy regardless of what
others do.

Another major supporter of
the need for early government action is prominent economist Ross Garnaut, who
has been employed by the Federal (and some state) Government as chief adviser
on climate matters. His major report in 2008, which he is updating this year,
has been accompanied by many statements justifying early action to reduce
emissions, but he has dodged any attempt to assess the science. Initially he
acknowledged there are large
uncertainties in the science but asserted that “the outsider to climate science
has no rational choice but to accept that, on the balance of probabilities, the
mainstream science is right in pointing to high risks from unmitigated climate
change” (Final Report on Climate Change Review, September 2008). In this year’s
Update, however, Garnaut seems to have “lost” his uncertainty and he now claims
that developments since 2008 “have strengthened the position of mainstream
science then held with a high degree of certainty”. It is clear that Garnaut has
now become little more than an adviser employed to help the government realise
its stated objective and to pay minimal regard to the uncertainties. It is remarkable
that he even supports the policy of Australia acting to reduce emissions
without any binding global agreement – or any realistic prospect of such an
agreement.

Let me just make it clear
here that, like Garnaut, I am not a scientist. But my nearly 50 years
experience as an economic analyst both in Treasury and outside provides a basis
for assessing the credibility of data used to justify the dangerous warming
thesis and for examining alternative explanations by sceptical scientists.
Contrary to Garnaut’s assertion, qualified “outsiders” must pass judgement on science-based proposals –if they did not
there would be a much bigger hole in government budgets!

The uncertainties about mainstream science and the
extent of dissent are so large that any attempt to apply the so-called
precautionary principle would defy common sense. Moreover, even if it were
accepted that temperatures will increase, the enormous uncertainties about the extent
and timing of any such increases, and about whether comprehensive mitigating
action is required, suggests no case has been established for governments to start an emissions reduction program.
Some say it’s no different to insuring your home. But even leaving aside that not
all of the population does that, insurance of houses is totally different to
insuring the whole economic system against damage whose possible extent and
timing are highly uncertain. There is also a wide range of opinion here, even
amongst believers, on when the benefits from emission reductions are likely to
occur.

For example, in an interview last week government-appointed
Climate Commissioner Flannery made the extraordinary assertion that “if the world as a whole cut all
emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop
in several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000 years, because the system is
overburdened with C02 that has to be absorbed”. Flannery’s timing perspective
does serve, however, to draw attention to analysis by other experts of the
timing and extent of economic changes from a major reduction in emissions.

Analysis of Economic Effects

For present purposes I draw
attention only to Garnaut’s analysis in his Final Report of September 2008 but
I note that he presents a view there that is similar to Stern’s. Both take the view that starting action now to
mitigate the effects of higher temperatures will not produce net benefits for many
years ahead when most of us will be dead. The basic Garnaut scenario is that,
although a meaningful emissions reduction program would involve “a major change
in the structure of our economy”, over time the net effect of mitigatory action
will be beneficial. This conclusion is based on a view that, in addition to
preventing damage from higher temperatures, Australian and other major
economies have adaptive capacities that allow the transfer to low-emissions
energy with relatively small initial adverse economic effects. However, “the
main benefits of mitigation accrue in the 22nd and 23rd centuries and beyond”
(P249).

Garnaut’s general message is
that, if we start taking mitigatory action now, that will cut the growth rate
over the next half century, but will lift it “somewhere in the last decades”
and produce a GDP at the end of the century “higher with ... mitigation than
without” (p 245). His graphical presentation shows GDP in 2100 after mitigatory
action has been taken as about 5 per cent higher than it would otherwise have
been (p 267). But note that Garnaut concludes that “Australian material living
standards are likely to grow strongly through the 21st century, with or without mitigation” (p565, my
emphasis).

While this is an unbelievable
conclusion that is probably designed to attract support from sceptics and
others who question the rationale, it also raises the question of why we should
be concerned about the possibility that taking no mitigatory action now will have
very little adverse effects on living standards between now and the end of the
century “higher with 550 mitigation than without” (p 245). In fact Garnaut’s
modelling suggests that a do nothing policy would still mean a GDP 700 per cent
larger in real terms than today.

In a separate document,
released in 2008 by Treasurer Swan and Climate Change Minister Wong
(“Australia’s Low Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate Change
Mitigation”, 30 Oct 08) Treasury arrived at virtually the same conclusion. After
examining various global scenarios it concluded that mitigatory action to
achieve CO2 concentration levels of 550 ppm by 2050 would reduce real GDP per
capita growth by only 0.1-0.2 % pa. Thus we have the view of experts that
damage from global warming between now and 2100 would be miniscule.

It is simply unbelievable
that Garnaut and Treasury have painted a picture of no significant adverse
effects from operating with much less efficient capital and energy or from the
major increase in government intervention in economic decision-making that
would likely inhibit entrepreneurial activity outside the financial sector. In
comparison, climate economist Richard Tol, who was an IPCC lead author, has
estimated that the cost of mitigatory action by 2100 will be about 40 times
greater than the benefits (see “Climate folly before failure”, Alan Wood, The
Australian, 1 Oct 09). The reality is that even mitigatory action between now
and 2020 to achieve 20% lower emissions could have significantly greater
adverse initial economic effects than implied by the modelling. In their
pamphlet “Back to the 19th Century” some colleagues have, with former Finance
Minister Peter Walsh, outlined the extensive potential for adverse influences.

The Garnaut report raises
three questions about the need for urgent government action.

First, given that the Garnaut
report effectively assumes that Australian living standards would increase
progressively to ever higher levels even if there is also a large increase in
temperatures, doesn’t this suggest that a private sector that is getting
wealthier and wealthier should be directly responsible for alleviating or
suffering the main costs? That should mean a policy based mainly on adaptation
rather than mitigatory action enforced by government.

Second, given the wide range
already available of technological alternatives to fossil fuels, and the
considerable research assistance already provided by governments, is it not
very likely that over the next 25 years one of those technologies will become
economically viable? Even if this doesn’t eventuate, is there any substantive
reason why nuclear power could not start to be used in Australia, perhaps
initially on a subsidised basis, and then extended progressively if temperature
increases resume? It is surely contrary to the national interest to start now forcing reductions in CO2 emissions,
let alone mandating resort to very expensive alternatives to supply 20 per cent
of electricity by 2020.

It is relevant that one
parameter in the Treasury modelling is that “carbon capture and storage
technology combined with coal and gas electricity generation is assumed to be
available on a commercial scale from
2020 in both Australia and the world” (emphasis added). If this is likely, there
is no need to proceed with an emissions reduction policy as we can simply
continue with using our greatest asset, coal.

My third question is why has
no account taken of the likelihood that by 2050 some existing alternative
energy technologies will become economically usable by then. Even leaving
carbon capture and storage aside, history tells us that scientific research will
very likely have produced a new, but now unknown viable solution. It is
nonsensical to argue for government intervention now to “save the planet” simply
because no economically viable solution is currently available.

My assessment of the
published economic modelling, and the potential availability of alternative
technology, is that it provides no substantive basis for the need to take urgent
action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, as Garnaut rightly says
“Climate change policy must begin with the science”, (Garnaut Climate Change
Review Interim Report, February 2008, p8) and we also need to assess the data
used to justify the scientific basis.

Assessing the Science

Although the IPCC’s key
public document (“Summary for Policy Makers”) derives from submissions by
scientists, the drafters have mainly been people sympathetic to the dangerous
global warming view. Claims that peer reviews of IPCC assessments ensure
accuracy are meaningless when reviewers are in the same “club” (and some
important conclusions now appear not to have been peer reviewed). In any event,
as already mentioned, today we now have a situation in which there are many
peer-reviewed analyses that reject or qualify analyses in IPCC reports.

Chapter 9 of the Fourth
Assessment report of the IPCC sets out that body’s basic science conclusion
that “it is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most
of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th
century” and its report portrays graphs of rising global and regional
temperatures over the last 100 years. The IPCC’s conclusion is that, as human
activity and use of fossil fuels will continue to increase emissions of carbon
dioxide, this will add to concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and
hencetemperatures. Moreover, as it is
also concluded that once CO2 concentrations reach a certain level it will
become impossible to stop temperatures from continuing to increase, early
action to reduce emissions is the only way to “save the planet”.

The IPCC is correct in saying
that some of the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases do stay in the
atmosphere in a concentrated form and do reflect back to earth some of the heat
radiated from the earth’s surface. However the extent to which the greenhouse
effect carries through to temperatures needs to be considered against relevant
data and science.

The CSIRO/BOM report of 15
March last year also simply draws on the IPCC analysis. It claims “there is
greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have
caused most of the global warming since the mid 20th century”. However
the only support provided for this statement is a one sentence reference to
“evidence of human influence ... detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise,
continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns”.

Temperatures and Concentrations of CO2 and Methane

I turn now to the graphs I
have circulated.

Let us look first at Figures
1 and 2 showing data of annual averages of temperatures from 1910 published by our
Bureau of Meteorology, the Hadley centre of the UK’s bureau of meteorology and
used by the IPCC. These bodies usually present this data publicly in the form
of ten year averages but this misses out on showing the considerable variation
from year to year and also on showing important change points that suggest changes
in the trend. An important change point is the increase in Australian temperatures
of about 0.6 of a degree in the mid 1970s due to the Great Pacific Climate
Shift in the mid 1970s. Why is this important? Because the increase reflected natural
causes and had no connection with fossil fuel emissions. Thus of the increase
over 100 years of about 0.7-0.8 of a degree about 75% reflected natural causes,
not increased emissions of fossil fuels.

Note also the solid lines
showing trends in global averages involving an upward movement from 1910 to
1940, then a decline, followed by the upward movement starting after the Great
Pacific Climate shift, and finally the relatively flat period since 1998.

This leads us to the graphs
shown in Figure 4 and the table at the bottom summarising the changes in
different periods of both temperatures and CO2 concentration levels. What the
table shows is that there were two periods, one from 1939 to 1977 and one from
1997 to the present, during which temperatures were relatively stable but CO2
concentration levels increased quite strongly, particularly in the most recent
period. It also shows a period when both temperatures and CO2 concentration
levels increased (1977 to 1997), but that was when the increase in temperatures
had nothing to do with emissions.It is
only in the pre-World War II period from 1910 to 1939 that it might be said there
was a close connection between changes in the two. However in that period usage
of fossil fuels would have been relatively low. My assessment is that, on the
basis of this analysis, there is only a limited statistical relationship
between changes in temperatures and changes in CO2 concentration levels.

Figures 10 and 11, which show
the behaviour of another greenhouse gas, methane, are also relevant and of
importance for interpreting the possible effect on concentrations of
Australia’s agriculture. The graphs show a surge in methane concentrations
between 1940 and 1980 and a subsequent sharp drop, while the table shows that
the current rate is now about the same as in the early 19th century.
What is the likely explanation of these changes? The CSIRO-BOM State of the
Climate report simply says that methane has shown similar increases to carbon
dioxide. But it makes no mention either of the fall from the end of the 1980s
or of the likelihood that both the rise and fall reflect initial leakages from
pipelines and the subsequent fixing of those leakages.

I have skipped past the
graphs shown in Figure 2 and I want to say here only that they show that “raw”
temperature data as collected are “adjusted” by official meteorological
organisations and, while adjustments are needed from time to time, they may be
questionable. That is certainly seems the case with the adjustments made to
Darwin temperatures by the BOM which wrongly added to the upward trend. When
challenged at a Senate Estimates Committee meeting, the head of BOM indicated
that the Bureau did not use the adjusted series for Darwin in its “high
quality” published series for Australia. There remains a question as to how
much confidence can be given to the other BOM adjustments and it is of interest
that Hadley still uses Australian raw data in its figures showing the global
average.

However let us assume that the published
temperature data is correct. One often-made claim is that temperatures are
higher now than they were a century ago and that the last decade shows the
highest temperatures “on record”. The warmest temperature on record in the last
decade was repeated in an article in Friday’s Age by the Government’s chief
scientific adviser Professor Steffen, Climate Commissioner Flannery and a
former chairman of the Business Council’s sustainable growth task. The article
also made various assertions about increased temperatures and record hot days
over the past 30-50 years. However, no mention was made of either the evidence
available indicating that higher temperatures occurred in periods before
official measurements were started from about 1850 or of the 0.6 increase in
1976/77 due to natural causes. Figures 5 to 7 show that the 0.6 increase occurred about the same time as
breaks in the time series showing CO2 concentrations. This suggests that there
is a strong interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere, that is, when
there is a significant (natural) change in the behaviour of the oceans that may
in turn cause a significant change in increases in CO2 concentrations. As to likely temperatures before
1850 when fossil fuel usage and CO2 concentrations were small, the IPCC’s 1990
report included a graph showing estimated temperatures for the Medieval Warming
Period (800 -1,100) higher than for the 20th century. Although the
IPCC did not repeat that graph in subsequent reports, and did not explain why, it is now widely accepted that there is strong evidence that
temperatures were higher then and also in the Greco-Roman warm period (600 BC -
200 AD). A report commissioned by US Congress from an expert statistician
concluded that there were fundamental flaws in an analysis purporting to show,
from tree rings, little or no increase in temperatures prior to the industrial
revolution – the so-called hockey stick presentation. More generally, it is not
surprising that some warming from natural causes has been experienced since the
end of the Little Ice Age, which occurred around 1800 well before CO2 emissions
became significant.

It seems difficult to avoid the
conclusion that there is no policy significance in claims that we have
temperatures that are the highest on record. Once account is taken of rises
over the past century due to the Great Pacific Climate Shift, of possible
manipulations of temperature data to help fit the warming theory, and of
historical evidence of higher temperatures, there is no policy significance in
the claims

I conclude that the
statistical analysis presented by the IPCC and others, including advisers to
the present government, is seriously defective in suggesting a close connection
between temperature increases in the past century or so and increases in CO2
concentrations and does not form any sound basis for the projection of an
increase in temperatures to 2100 ranging from 2-4 degrees.

But what about
other evidence?

Droughts and Rainfall

I turn now to Figures 8 and 9.

Although the Government’s
Green paper of July 2008 acknowledged that since the 1950s the NE of Australia
has become wetter (it actually appears more to be in the NW), much attention
has been given to below average rainfalls in other areas, particularly in the
Murray-Darling Basin since 2000. Drawing on advice from the CSIRO and the BOM,
Garnaut’s modelling assumes that the projected higher temperatures will be
accompanied by lower rainfall and, in the case of the MDB, he makes the
extraordinary claim that “by mid-century it would lose half of its annual
irrigated agricultural output … and by the end of the century … would no longer
be a home to agriculture” (Final Report, p258). However, even the joint
CSIRO/BOM report of 15March acknowledges that over the past 50 years “total
rainfall in the Australian continent has been relatively stable” and provides
no evidence that would support the Garnaut conclusion.

There is in fact no sound
basis for such modelled projections. The variations in MDB annual rainfall
clearly show no connection with levels or variations in Australia’s average
temperature. Indeed, there is no statistically significant change in MDB
rainfall since 1900 and the above average temperatures in the 1980-2000 period,
reflecting the Great Pacific Climate Shift, were accompanied by above average
rainfall.

Past Australian droughts
occurred when global temperatures were lower than now and wetter years occurred
when such temperatures were rising. There is no reason to expect that to
change.

Antarctic and Arctic Ice Sheets
-and the Reef

I turn now to Figures 12 to
14.

If large ice sheets and
glaciers started to melt, sea levels rose and low-lying land became more
susceptible to flooding that could be indirect evidence of warming.

The last IPCC report
predicted an increase in average global sea levels to 2100 ranging between 18
and 59 cms (about 2 feet). As to the CSIRO/BOM report of March last year, it
suggests that the rate of global sea level rise increased in the 20th century,
and the accompanying published graph showed an increase of about 1.5 cms per
decade. A continuation of that rate would suggest an increase to 2100 close to
the lower end of the IPCC’s predicted range.

Satellite measurements of sea
levels from 1994 also show an average rate of increase close to the lower end
of the IPCC’s initial predicted range, but with a lower rate of increase in the
last 8 years (See figure 12). In 2009 the Dutch Meteorological Institute stated
that sea levels have risen 20 centimetres (about 8 inches) in the past century
and there is “no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise”. Yet both under Prime
Ministers Rudd and Gillard there have been what can only be described as scare
campaigns that climate change threatens sea levels that will likely inundate
many thousands of houses near the sea. The briefing instructions to Labor MPs reported
in the last Weekend Australian tells them that “sea levels could rise by up to
a metre and possibly even more by the end of the century ... up to 250,000
existing homes are at risk of inundation”. Owners of properties close to the
ocean are being stopped from development by such alarmism and may be able to
take legal action to prevent such measures.

As to the Arctic (Figure 14),
while meltings did sharply reduce the extent of sea ice in 2007, that occurred
when global temperatures were falling and during a period of cloudlessness in
the area. Since 2007 the sea ice extent has returned to what it was in
2005.Although a downward trend remains,
more extensive Arctic meltings have occurred in the past when CO2 emissions
were very much lower and such meltings have no effect on sea levels because the
ice is already in the sea. Canada’s North West passage has in fact been
navigated in periods when fossil fuel usage was small.

As to the Antarctic, the
total ice area has been increasing and has recently reached record levels.
Break offs of sections of the Antarctic ice sheet do occur but are normal and
recent imaginative claims of a small increase in temperatures (from 50 degrees
below) were based on data from the one or two weather stations that cover the
vast area. Satellite data covering the past thirty years show a distinct
cooling of the Antarctic region.

Turning to the Great Barrier Reef, which is high on the
Government’s list of reasons for an emissions reduction scheme and has a
Foundation that is concerned about possible bleaching caused by global warming,
any action by Australia to reduce emissions would not help unless there is an
effective agreement by major emitters. It should also be noted that most of the
reef has recovered from the bleachings of 1998 and 2002, which probably
resulted from the temporary warming of sea water that occurs during the light
winds that occur at the time of El Ninos and that limit the flow of cooler
water across the reef.The Reef may have
a stronger capacity to continue than is thought by some.

The Science of Emission Concentrations

I turn to figures 15 and 16.

The IPCC’s 2001 report
acknowledged that the climate is a “complex, non-linear, chaotic object” and
that long-term prediction of climate states is “impossible”. All such
analytical qualifications have since disappeared and the politicisation of
climate science has almost certainly played an important part in that.

Figure
15 is difficult for a non-scientist to explain. Most importantly, it shows that
increases in C0 2 concentrations do not result in a commensurate increase in radiation
back to the surface of the earth (the greenhouse effect). Let us look at what
would happen if CO2 concentrations were to double, which is what the IPCC
projects to happen by 2100 if there is no government action to reduce
emissions. Thus Figure 15 shows that if concentrations increased from where
they are now (nearly 400ppm) to 800ppm that would only increase radiation back
to the earth’s surface by about 10 per cent (from about 29 watts per square
metre to about 32 watts). (This analysis comes from an online calculator of energy
in the atmosphere (MODTRANS) and is an international and IPCC accepted standard
for atmospheric calculation).

The
question then arises as to what would happen to surface temperatures and what
are the implications for the modelling of temperatures in the future.

There is in fact very
considerable doubt about the basis of the modelling used by the IPCC to project
temperature increases. Although these models incorporate the positive feedbacks
from water vapour that increase the radiation effects back to earth and oceans
from increased CO2 concentrations (and hence cause some initial rise in
temperatures), they fail to reflect all the temperature reducing effects from the negative feedback coming from the strong
increase in evaporation from the ocean (which constitutes 70% of the earth’s
surface) that also occurs as surface temperatures rise.

This means that the IPCC
models significantly understate the
temperature reducing effects that offset the initial increases from radiation
back to earth. The modelled outcomes of larger CO2 concentrations by the IPCC
thus produce a much larger increase in surface temperature than would be likely
to occur.

Figure 16 provides a summary
of the various warming or cooling influences identified by the IPCC as
producing the radiative forcings back from CO2 concentrations in the
atmosphere, with an average increase
of 1.6 watts per square metre. But the range around the average is enormous -
from 0.6 to 2.4 square metres - and that in turn reflects the large ranges in
radiative forcings for the various individual influences. Some of the estimates
are also based on opinions of experts, not measured data. If the estimates of
radiative forcing are much too large, which is quite possible given the margin
of errors, that would obviously reduce the warming effect on the earth’s
surface.

What all this means is that
there is potential for wide margins of error in the estimates of the
temperature effects arising from the greenhouse gases that remain in
concentrated form in the atmosphere and, hence, in the future projections of
temperatures. This reinforces the uncertainties already identified in assessing
other features of the climate.

Conclusion

I summarise my
assessment as follows. There are fundamental faults in the statistical and scientific
analyses used to justify the need for early comprehensive mitigatory action by
governments; claims of a consensus on the IPCC science have no credibility and
account is not taken of the long history of faulty analyses by scientists; that
examination of the temperature and CO2 concentrations data indicate that the
green house effect on temperaturesto
2100 is likely to be much less than the IPCC (and other believers) predict;
that there is no substantive evidence of threats from rising sea levels or
meltings of sea icein the Arctic or
Antarctic; that there is no evidence of any significant change in average
rainfallor that droughts and other
severe weather events are likely to occur more frequently. In conclusion, my
submission is that the best policy is to adapt to changes in climate and to
leave that mainly to the private sector.

Comments

I am a nobody with no Professional qualifications so my oppinion is probably not important to anyone,however with a little light reading you can come to the same conclusion I did THE Climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years and CO2 has been as high as 6,000 ppm only about 600million years ago.Without the high CO2 and the abundant plant and animal life that went with it we would not exist or have the resources to exist as a civilisation.cheers

The conclusions that 1. CO2 has less impact on temperatures than the IPCC claims2. the catastrophic consequences of any given warming are less than the IPCC claimsare not separate. Without one, the other is diminished markedly. If both are exaggerated then rather than forecasting a potential catastrophe, there is more likely a trivial problem. But your conclusions leave out a major element in the early discourse. The policy is based upon wishful thinking. The extra incentives for technological research (through carbon taxes or cap 'n' trade schemes, or compulsory energy saving measures) will mean a major breakthrough in low-carbon technologies. There looks to be no massive leap in the near future in low-cost batteries, or in wind or solar or tidal or wave or cold fusion or nuclear technologies. Certainly no marginal incentives over and above the current high cost of oil with the uncertainties from the high-risk countries where much of it is sourced.There are two sides to Stern that lead to him claiming around stabilisation of CO2 at around twice pre-industrial levels. There are the claimed costs of letting levels go much higher, crossing supposed tipping points. But there are also the high policy costs of constraining CO2 growth to much lower levels, or even constraining at current levels. This optimum, according to Stern, has a total costs of 5% to 20% of doing nothing. This concept I tried to graph along the lines of Marshallian supply-demand curves, or Hicksian IS-LM curves. It would need a proper economic theorist to show that on the policy front a near global policy is required. For single countries as GDP/GWP (W = World) tends to nil, %GDP expenditure on combatting global warming per unit of temperature reduction tends to infinity.http://manicbeancounter.com/2011/02/11/climate-change-policy-in-perspective-%E2%80%93-part-1-of-4/

Sir Henry Fraser has an impressive CV.
Barbados' newest knight, retired university professor, Dr. Henry Fraser, received the Accolade of Knight of St. Andrew, in the 2014 Independence Day Hours. Sir Henry Fraser was named as a result of The Knighthood of St. Andrew being bestowed on him for his outstanding contribution to the medical profession and representation of Barbadian culture, especially in the area of its architectural history.Sir Henry, a medical practitioner by profession, has worked for many years as a lecturer in medicine at the University of the West Indies and now serves as an Independent Senator in the Barbados Parliament where he has gained an outstanding reputation for his work on the historic treasures of Barbados.

He has received a plethora of other awards, including the UWI’s Pelican Award, Paul Harris Fellow of Rotary International and the Gold Crown of Merit (GCM) in the Barbados Honours of 1992.